Is the Feldstein-Horioka Puzzle Valid in OECD Countries?

Ceren Pehlivan; Özge Korkmaz

doi:10.25229/beta.1594118

EN TR

Is the Feldstein-Horioka Puzzle Valid in OECD Countries?

Abstract

Investments and savings are regarded as critical components in the evolution of economic performance. Both are employed to stimulate economic development and growth. Based on international capital movements, the Feldstein-Horioka puzzle investigated the relationship between savings and investment. The validity of the Feldstein-Horioka puzzle was investigated in this investigation for the years 1990-2021, covering OECD countries.

Keywords

Feldstein-Horioka Puzzle, Saving, Investment, Westerlund (2007) Cointegration Test

Ethical Statement

This study, which does not require ethics committee approval and/or legal/special permission, complies with research and publication ethics.

References

Akadiri, S. S., Apinran, M. O., & Usman, N. (2020). New insight into Feldstein and Horioka paradox: analyzing the mediating roles of globalization, urbanization, and foreign direct investment. Journal of Public Affairs, 22(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2472
Akadiri, S. Saint, Ahmed, I. I., Usman, O., & Seraj, M. (2016). The Feldstein-Horioka paradox, a case study of Turkey. Asian Economic and Financial Review, 6(12), 744–749. https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.aefr/2016.6.12/102.12.744.749.
Akkoyunlu, S. (2020). Revisiting the Feldstein-Horioka Puzzle for Turkey. Journal of Applied Economics, 23(1), 129–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/15140326.2020.1711592.
Balavac, M. (2011). The Role of Remittences in the Explanation of Feldstein-Horioka Paradox: Evidence from Transition Economies. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 24(4), 91–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2011.11517483.
Baltagi, B. H. (2005). Econometric Analysis of Panel Data. In John Wiley & Sons.
Caglar, A. E., & Yavuz, E. (2017). Türkiye’de Yatırım-Tasarruf İlişkisinin Feldstein-Horioka Paradoksu Çerçevesinde Analizi: Farklı Tipte Eşbütünleşme Yaklaşımları. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Ensti Tüsü Dergisi Pamukkale, 31, 143–152.
Çağlayan Akay, E., & Türküz, E. (2016). Gelişmiş ve Gelişmekte Olan Ülkelerde Feldstein-Horioka Bulmacasının Analizi. EconWorld2016@ ImperialCollege Proceedings, 1–18.
Celik, A., Kostekci, A., & Alola, A. A. (2024). Carbon neutrality implication of material productivity, total factor productivity and renewable energy uptake in the Nordics. Ecological Indicators, 160, 111813.
Corbin, A. (2001). Country Specific Effect in the Feldstein-Horioka Paradox: a Panel Data Analysis. Economics Letters, 72(3), 297–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-1765(01)00447-5
Duran, H. E. ., & Ferreira-Loper, A. (2023). The Revival of the Feldstein-Horioka Puzzle and Moderation of Capital Flows After the Global Financial Crisis (2008/09). Research in International Business and Finance, 351.

Erdugan, F. (2012). Görünüşte İlişkisiz Regresyon Modellerinde Parametre Tahmin Yöntemleri. In Çukurova Üniversitesi.
Esen, E., Yildirim, S., & Kostakoglu, S. F. (2012). Feldstein-Horioka Hipotezinin Türkiye Ekonomisi için Sınanması: ARDL Modeli Uygulaması. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 7(1), 251–267.
Fouquau, J., Hurlin, C., & Rabaud, I. (2008). The Feldstein-Horioka Puzzle: A Panel Smooth Transition Regression Approach. Economic Modelling, 25(2), 284–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2007.06.008
Frankel, J. A. (1979). Domestic Savings and International Caital Flows (No. 310).
Fujiki, H., & Kitamura, Y. (1995). Feldstein-Horioka Paradox Revisited. Institute of Economic Research, 13(1), 1–16.
Gómez, P. Ó., Serrano, R. H., & Robledo, C. J. (2015). The Feldstein-Horioka Paradox – Evidence for Colombia during 1925-2011. Ecos de Economía, 19(40), 4–24.
Greene, W. H. (2002). Econometric Analysis of Count Data. In Prentice Hall (Fifth).
Gül, E., & Acar, S. (2016). Tasarruflar ile Ekonomik Büyüme Arasındaki İlişkinin Gelişmiş ve Gelişmekte Olan Ülke Grupları Örneği ile İncelenmesi. Sakarya İktisat Dergisi, 7(3), 54–78.
Hussain, T., Mehmood, B., Siddiqi, M. W., & Sarwar, S. (2011). The Feldstein-Horioka Paradox in the Perspective of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI): A Pragmatic Validation. African Journal of Business Management, 5(16), 6839–6844. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJBM10.1560.
Ko, J.-H., & Funashima, Y. (2016). On the Sources of the Feldstein-Horioka Puzzle across Time and Frequencies. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 81(4), 889–910.
Lapp, S. (1996). The Feldstein-Horioka Paradox: A Selective Survey of the Literature (No. 752).
Oktayer, N., & Susam, N. (2007). Tasarruf-Yatırım-Sermaye Hareketleri İlişkisinin Türkiye Örneğinde Değerlendirilmesi. Trakya Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 9(2), 19–54.
Özbay, F., & Duyar, I. (2022). Exploring the role of education on environmental quality and renewable energy: Do education levels really matter?. Current Research in Environmental Sustainability, 4, 100185.
Pata, U. K. (2018). The Feldstein Horioka Puzzle in E7 Countries: Evidence from Panel Cointegration and Asymmetric Causality Analysis. Journal of International Trade and Economic Development, 27(8), 968–984. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638199.2018.1480053
Pehlivan, C. (2022). Feldstein-Horioka Bulmacası ve Türkiye’den Kanıtlar. Birey ve Toplum Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 12(1), 29–44.
Pesaran, M. H., (2007). A Simple Panel Unit Root in the Presence of Cross-Section Dependence, Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22, pp. 265- 312.
Ríos, V.-H. A., Zaldívar, M. G., & Santaulària Ventosa, D. (2011). Paradoja Feldstein-Horioka: El Caso de México (1950-2007). 26(2), 293–313.
Sachs, J. (1982). Aspects of the Current Account Behavior of OECD Countries. In NBER Working Paper (No. 859).
Şeyranlioğlu, O. (2023). ‘Feldstein-Horioka Hipotezinin Türkiye Ekonomisi İçin Sınanması: RALS Yaklaşımından Kanıtlar. Ekonomi Politika ve Finans Araştırmaları Dergisi, 8(3), 498–518.
Suruga, T., & Rahman, M. (2016). Feldstein-Horioka Paradox – The Case of South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation. European Journal of Business and Management, 8(2), 22–30.
Tatoglu, F.Y., (2018). Panel zaman serileri analizi, 2nd ed. Beta Yayınları, Istanbul.
Tuncsiper, B., & Bicen, O. F. (2016). Feldstein-Horioka Hipotezinin Görünürde İlişkisiz Regresyon Yöntemiyle Analizi: Gelişen Ekonomiler (E7) Üzerine Bir İnceleme. Sosyal Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 16(31), 348–362. https://doi.org/10.30976/susead.302174
Uzgören, N. (1999). Görünüşte İlişkisiz Regresyon Denklemlerinin Etkinliği Üzerinde Hatalar Arasındaki Korelasyonun ve Bağımsız Değişkenler Arasındaki Korelasyonun Etkisinin İncelenmesi. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 1, 139–154.
Vamvakidis, M. A., & Wacziarg, R. (1998). Developing Countries and the Feldstein-Horioka Puzzle. In International Monetary Fund.
Vogelvang, B. (2005). Econometrics: Theory and Applications with EViews. In Pearson Education Limited. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:Econometrics:+Theory+and+Applications+with+EViews#0
Yalcinkaya, O., & Huseyni, I. (2016). Tasarruf-Yatırım İlişkisi: Feldstein-Horioka Hipotezinin OECD Ülkeleri Açısından Değerlendirilmesi (1980-2013). Dokuz Eylul Universitesi Iktisadi ve Idari Bilimler Dergisi, 31(1), 343–369. https://doi.org/10.24988/deuiibf.2016311479
Yerdelen Tatoğlu, F. (2012). İleri Panel Veri Analizi: Stata Uygulamalı. Beta Yayınları.
Yildirim, D., & Koska, O. A. (2018). Puzzling out the Feldstein-Horioka Paradox for Turkey by a Time-Varying Parameter Approach. In The Dynamics of Growth in Emerging Economies. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429436369-3
Yildirim, D., & Orman, E. E. (2018). The Feldstein-Horioka Puzzle in the Presence of Structural Breaks: Evidence from China. Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, 23(3), 374–392. https://doi.org/10.1080/13547860.2017.1396640
Zellner, A. (1962). An Efficient Method of Estimating Seemingly Unrelated Regressions and Tests For Aggregation Bias. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 57(298), 348–368.
Zellner, A. (1963). Estimators for Seemingly Unrelated Regression Equations: Some Exact Finite Sample Results. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58(304), 977–992.
Westerlund, J., (2007). Panel Cointegration Tests of the Fisher Hypothesis, Journal of Applied Econometrics, 23, pp. 193–233.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Panel Data Analysis, Monetary Policy

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Ceren Pehlivan ^*
0000-0001-5632-2955
Türkiye

Özge Korkmaz
0000-0001-9275-1271
Türkiye

Early Pub Date

February 27, 2025

Publication Date

February 28, 2025

Submission Date

November 30, 2024

Acceptance Date

January 27, 2025

Published in Issue

Year 2025 Volume: 10 Number: 1

DOI

https://doi.org/10.25229/beta.1594118

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA79XK76XD

APA

Pehlivan, C., & Korkmaz, Ö. (2025). Is the Feldstein-Horioka Puzzle Valid in OECD Countries? Bulletin of Economic Theory and Analysis, 10(1), 317-337. https://doi.org/10.25229/beta.1594118

AMA

1.Pehlivan C, Korkmaz Ö. Is the Feldstein-Horioka Puzzle Valid in OECD Countries? Beta. 2025;10(1):317-337. doi:10.25229/beta.1594118

Chicago

Pehlivan, Ceren, and Özge Korkmaz. 2025. “Is the Feldstein-Horioka Puzzle Valid in OECD Countries?”. Bulletin of Economic Theory and Analysis 10 (1): 317-37. https://doi.org/10.25229/beta.1594118.

EndNote

Pehlivan C, Korkmaz Ö (February 1, 2025) Is the Feldstein-Horioka Puzzle Valid in OECD Countries? Bulletin of Economic Theory and Analysis 10 1 317–337.

IEEE

[1]C. Pehlivan and Ö. Korkmaz, “Is the Feldstein-Horioka Puzzle Valid in OECD Countries?”, Beta, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 317–337, Feb. 2025, doi: 10.25229/beta.1594118.

ISNAD

Pehlivan, Ceren - Korkmaz, Özge. “Is the Feldstein-Horioka Puzzle Valid in OECD Countries?”. Bulletin of Economic Theory and Analysis 10/1 (February 1, 2025): 317-337. https://doi.org/10.25229/beta.1594118.

JAMA

1.Pehlivan C, Korkmaz Ö. Is the Feldstein-Horioka Puzzle Valid in OECD Countries? Beta. 2025;10:317–337.

MLA

Pehlivan, Ceren, and Özge Korkmaz. “Is the Feldstein-Horioka Puzzle Valid in OECD Countries?”. Bulletin of Economic Theory and Analysis, vol. 10, no. 1, Feb. 2025, pp. 317-3, doi:10.25229/beta.1594118.

Vancouver

1.Ceren Pehlivan, Özge Korkmaz. Is the Feldstein-Horioka Puzzle Valid in OECD Countries? Beta. 2025 Feb. 1;10(1):317-3. doi:10.25229/beta.1594118

Cited By

TÜRKİYE’DE TASARRUF, YATIRIM VE SERMAYE HAREKETLİLİĞİ: FELDSTEİN-HORIOKA BULMACASININ YENİDEN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

EKEV Akademi Dergisi

https://doi.org/10.17753/sosekev.1775959

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRvoKvjUr081z-KcdXLcXXPQTR9B7O8m0BOBg&s

The articles published in this journal are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Is the Feldstein-Horioka Puzzle Valid in OECD Countries?

Abstract

Keywords

Feldstein-Horioka Bulmacası OECD Ülkelerinde Geçerli mi?

Abstract

Keywords

Ethical Statement

References

Details

Primary Language

Subjects

Journal Section

Authors

Early Pub Date

Publication Date

Submission Date

Acceptance Date

Published in Issue

DOI

IZ

Cite

Cited By

TÜRKİYE’DE TASARRUF, YATIRIM VE SERMAYE HAREKETLİLİĞİ: FELDSTEİN-HORIOKA BULMACASININ YENİDEN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ